Pettiness, Politics, Pluto, and Prague

The Great Planet Debate presented a wealth of information about issues of planet formation and migration, asteroids, extra-solar planets, objects that straddle the border between categories, and of course, the core dispute at the root of this issue, the dynamical versus geophysical perspectives of viewing our solar system.

But there also was another side, an uglier side of the planet debate and the fateful events in Prague two years ago that came to light during this conference.  It is not pretty, and it is not science.  It is a tale of pettiness and politics coming together and how they motivated the most crass, base motivations for the flawed planet definition adopted by the IAU.

On a personal level, I take no joy in reporting these events. I wish none of what I am about to relate were true.  But the facts are, these things did happen, and citizens of the world have the right to know the truth about the way in which an organization that claims to be the authority on astronomical matters came by a decision that has worldwide implications.

I will emphasize that none of these petty or political considerations were present at the Great Planet Debate, where even professionals holding opposing views treated each other congenially and with a sense of humor, even having drinks together at night after the official conference proceedings.

But back to Prague.  There are three specific incidents of pettiness and politics that clearly motivated the vote and therefore, in effect should be considered to render it illegitimate.

A. For unknown reasons, Dr. Brian Marsden, British astronomer and Director of the Minor Planet Center at Harvard University (the Minor Planet Center falls under the auspices of the IAU), has harbored a personal grudge against Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto, since at least 1980.  People with firsthand knowledge of the situation confirmed this at the conference.  Apparently, on numerous occasions, Marsden expressed to Tombaugh his determination to "torpedo your planet," vowing that he would make sure Pluto was given an asteroid number even though Tombaugh might not live to see it.
The Minor Planet Center assigns numbers to asteroids and, since 2006, to dwarf planets as well.  Marsden obviously pursued his goal rigorously and achieved it two years ago.  Yet the motivation for his hostility toward Tombaugh remains unknown.   What is known is that a personal vendetta rather than science motivated Marsden in his quest.

B. After the IAU's Working Group on Planetary System Nomenclature recommended a schematic with 12 planets, including Ceres, Charon, and Eris, a few dynamicists began a revolt that ultimately shot down that proposal and replaced it with the one eventually adopted, going against the IAU's own rules by proposing a resolution in real time without it having first been vetted by the appropriate committee(s). One of the ringleaders in this effort is reported to have said that if the provision allowing dwarf planets to be classified as a subcategory of planets were adopted, his life's work would be ruined. This almost certainly was a melodramatic exaggeration, likely a guilt trip to bully other IAU members into going along with the replacement resolution that precluded dwarf planets from being considered planets. However, it is extremely noteworthy because here we have a scientist clearly motivated not by science but by concerns centered around his own ego.

C. European astronomers in general, French astronomers in particular, repeatedly bullied American astronomers at the General Assembly telling them that Pluto was going down because of their anger over US policy in the Middle East.  Many have suspected the IAU vote had been motivated by anti-American sentiment, as Pluto is the only planet discovered by an American.  But to hear that such blatant political statements were made, with no attempt to even be subtle or conceal these motives behind scientific jargon, is tremendously disturbing.  The IAU wants citizens of the world to view it as the authority on astronomical matters, yet its members openly and publicly proclaimed their plans to seek a pre-determined outcome based on politics, not science.   How can anyone view the IAU as a legitimate arbiter of celestial definitions after its members have so compromised their commitments to science and objectivity?

The above may sound like a rant; it may sound like a conspiracy theory, but the fact remains that all these incidents have been confirmed by people who experienced them firsthand. Before educators of the world rush to change textbooks and lessons, they need to hear this truth, however painful it is, about the personal and political manipulation that directly led to the pronouncement that "Pluto is not a planet."

Two years ago, in my first blog entry on this topic, I commented, "The IAU decision, made in a highly political context on the last day of its conference, with a very small minority of members even taking part in the vote, tells us more about old-fashioned human weaknesses than it does about the outer solar system. Even in our most educated circles, we still have ego issues, factional disputes, and individuals vying for personal recognition."   There is no "I told you so" here, just infinite sadness that this statement so captured the reality, that the events that took place in Prague two years ago are so much more a study in psychology than in astronomy.

Knowing these truths of what really happened only make the case for reversing the IAU's 2006 planet definition more compelling.  In fighting for such a reversal, the words of a song from the play "Rags," in which I performed in 1990, come to mind.  That play is a historical musical depicting the lives of Irish, Italian, and Jewish immigrants in New York City in 1910.  One of the characters, Saul, a labor union organizer against sweatshop abuses, sings the following:

"If it's wrong, you can fix it.  If you can't, you can fight it.  If you don't like to fight, you can learn. You don't need to be blind here.  You can open your mind here.  Better than see the light--help it burn!"

In this case, our choices are attempting to get the IAU to "fix" its broken planet definition of 2006, or, if that fails,to fight in the public arena for a better one.  This is an effort that calls not just to scientists but to all citizens of the world to contribute our efforts, our input, our insights, to help the light of truth burn.

The reality of what happened two years ago is painful, but knowing it is the first step to undoing it, as recognition of any problem is the first step toward addressing that problem. As a Lebanese activist once said about injustices committed in his country, "It must be told.  The world must know."

It Shouldn't End

"It just won't end. Two years after the International Astronomical Union demoted Pluto from a planet to a dwarf, the bickering goes on."  So begins an online article by Nature.com on The Great Planet Debate.

There is a very strong case to be made that  it shouldn't end. We are continually discovering new data about Pluto, the Kuiper Belt, Ceres, Vesta, exoplanets, etc., all of which must go into informing our concept of what makes something a planet. I cannot understand this need to artificially end what is clearly an open discussion, largely because we just don't have sufficient data yet about some of these bodies to draw firm conclusions. What the IAU did was horrible--a linguistically nonsensical definition brought about through a highly flawed process that did not even adhere to the recommendations of its own committee. Should we just leave things in this mess because "the IAU has spoken" (well, four percent of them, anyway). What about the fact that most planetary scientists, those whose expertise and research specifically deal with planets, are not IAU members? Shouldn't these be the people making such a decision if it is made at all? There is a very real dichotomy between two strains of thought--dynamicists, who look at where objects are, and planetary scientists, who look at what they are. In an age where new knowledge is constantly pouring in, of course such definitions will be in flux.

What if we had decided to "cut off debate" and end discussion of what a planet is after the discoveries of Uranus and Neptune or after the 17th century revolution in which we realized the sun is the center of the solar system? How would we incorporate new information? What's wrong with the debate being ongoing???

Even more significantly, we have one spacecraft en route to Vesta and Ceres and another en route to Pluto.  Dawn will arrive at Vesta in 2011 and at Ceres in 2015, the latter being the same year as New Horizons' rendezvous with Pluto.   This means we know that within seven years, an entire new set of data will become available to us about these objects, data that is likely to surprise us and could very well change how we view and classify these objects. Knowing this data is coming makes the idea of shutting down the debate even more incomprehensible.

As for education, what is wrong with teaching that there are two schools of thought, and both are equally valid? What is wrong with discussing something that excites people about astronomy?  Like it or not, the subject of Pluto evokes passion.  Why not use that passion as a stepping stone to introduce astronomy to many people who have had little or no previous exposure to it?  NASA submitted sample lessons for teaching the controversy at the second through fifth grade level and again at the high school level.   The lesson plan for younger children calls for the teacher to introduce a new term, such as "dwarf planet," have the students explain the term in their own words, have them create a non-linguistic representation of the term, engage in activities that help them understand the term, discuss the term with one another, and engage in games that allow them to play with the term.

In another lesson, the students are asked to compare characteristics of Earth, Ceres, Vesta, and Pluto--location relative to other solar system bodies, size and shape, mass and gravity, density, presence or lack of water, internal structure, surface features, number of moons, presence or lack of magnetic field, length of day, length of year, and presence or lack of atmosphere--and are then presented with both the IAU definition and a contrasting definition based on an object's geophysical characteristics. This opens debate on the issue, followed by a written exercise in which students explain how their understanding of a planet has changed or not changed as a result of the lesson.

At the high school level, students are presented with the case of the discovery of a hypothetical planet and then given a list of that planet's characteristics as compared with those of the known planets, dwarf planets, various of the planets' moons and asteroids. They are then asked to classify the new object using these many characteristics.  The lesson then proceeds to a debate with some students representing the IAU viewpoint and others taking the opposing position.  Both sides are evaluated on clarity and coherence of their arguments and rebuttals, teamwork, and adherence to rules regarding each person's time to speak and their opening and closing statements.

Has our culture become so focused on needing and seeking "closure" to everything that we cannot comprehend the utility of discussion that goes on for decades, centuries, or even indefinitely?

One online comment in a forum discussing the Great Planet Debate is especially troubling.  The poster states that the IAU has spoken; they are the authority and the experts, and therefore, we should follow what they say. This sentiment was echoed by one of the dynamicists at the Great Planet Debate, who stated that while he would have preferred that the IAU come up with a better definition, one that includes dwarf planets as a subclass of planets, now that they have done something else, we need to recognize their definition and work with it to avoid chaos and a situation in which multiple planet definitions are used.

The same speaker said he believes some decisions by authoritative bodies are so wrong that they beg for revolution and/or resistance, but this one does not rise to that occasion.

We clearly have a cultural issue here, and it centers on how people respond to authority.  American education is supposed to prepare students to be active participants in democracy, which requires critical thinking skills.  Those skills can and do often involve the need to question authority, even to question the legitimacy of those who claim to be in authority. Development of these skills mandates that the goal of education be teaching students how to think rather than what to think.
Blind obedience to any authority is dangerous because it turns people into automatons, easily enabling the rise of dictatorships and the perpetration of all sorts of injustices. Opposition to such blind obedience is inherent in American culture and can be seen on both sides of the US political divide.  Whether the issue is the decision to have an abortion or the right to own guns, the American people largely do not like being told what to do.

However, resistance to blind obedience in general and to the IAU decision in particular are not, as some claim, occurring only in the US.  Astronomy educators in England and Australia have discussed their own opposition to the IAU's planet definition in online blogs and report just as much resistance to it from their own populations.

The writer of the article in Nature.com argues that the Great Planet Debate is about maintaining status for New Horizons and even about making money through books, T-shirts, and bumper stickers.  These arguments are highly questionable and sound a lot like ways of dodging the very real issue at hand.  There are always people who will use controversy to sell objects and make money; if this controversy didn't exist, they would likely find something else.  And the fact that so many people continue to buy items supporting Pluto's planet status is a statement in and of itself.  People vote with their dollars; their purchase of these items is their expression, through the market, of displeasure with the IAU decision.

As for New Horizons, the mission hardly needs to manufacture publicity.  It is already fully funded, and its stunning Jupiter flyby images speak for themselves.  NASA has active Solar System Ambassadors and Educators, some of whom specifically focus on educating the public on the New Horizons mission. This debate was not done to promote New Horizons.  It was done because there is a need for open, participatory debate on the issue of what constitutes a planet, a process not provided by the IAU.  In effect, the Great Planet Debate did what the IAU should have done but failed to do.

These discussions can and should continue, and they should involve not just professional astronomers but amateurs and members of the public as well.  The goal is to get people thinking, questioning, evaluating, and re-evaluating their positions on this topic.  If that results in a planetary version of the Boston Tea Party and a throwing of the IAU definition into bodies of water, so be it.

In short, it's all good.

A Genuine Learning Experience

I've just spent the last two days here in the city of my namesake in an intensive and exhilarating learning experience. The time has flown by.  Both days were so filled with seminars, discussions, and evening socializing that I've barely had time to open up my laptop except to save the audiotaped sessions from my digital tape recorder.  So while I promised to blog from the conference, the entries are a bit delayed, as this is the first time I've had any significant free moments to process everything I have experienced and share it with readers.

This will be the first of several entries on the conference, which still lasts one more day.  Tomorrow's portion is geared toward educators and focuses on how to teach the planet controversy along with updates on the Dawn and New Horizons missions. But like my early research and outreach efforts two years ago, what started as advocacy for a cause evolved into so much more, into a genuine, never-ending learning experience.

In a very open, friendly environment, those of us at this conference learned so much about the solar system--about planetary formation; solar system dynamics; asteroids such as Ceres, Pallas and Vesta; properties of jovian and terrestrial planets; diverse exoplanets; classification schemes; a first hand account of events at the fateful IAU General Assembly two years ago, and so much more. We learned not just from the professionals, but from one another.  Participants ranged from professional astronomers to teachers to writers to interested members of the public, to Clyde Tombaugh's daughter Annette--also a teacher--as well as her husband and grandson.

And we had the both educational and highly entertaining opportunity to witness a lively debate between Dr. Neil de Grasse Tyson and Dr. Mark Sykes on planet definition and, of course, Pluto.  They may not have agreed with one another, but neither was especially enthusiastic about the IAU planet definition.  Tyson wants to toss the term planet entirely, claiming it no longer has any meaning.  Sykes, one of the conference organizers, advocates keeping the term but differentiating the many diverse types of planets by creating subcategories.

On a personal level, I learned so many new things about the solar system--how orbital resonance works, the fact that Vesta and Pallas are closer in composition to planets than to asteroids, the decaying orbit of Triton that will eventually crash it into Neptune, the existence of Earth's "second moon," a tiny object orbiting our planet, and much, much more.   Among family and friends, I like to play the "know it all" about the solar system, but here, like almost all participants, I found out how much I didn't know.

The social networking opportunities during the breaks were less formal, but equally enlightening learning experiences.  In addition to meeting my personal equivalent of celebrities--leaders of the movement to overturn the IAU's demotion of Pluto, who are leading experts in their fields--and the daughter of Pluto's discoverer, I and the other attendees got the chance to chat with these leading minds in a relaxed setting, to tell jokes and "hang out" while at the same time sharing insights into the planet definition issue and each of our individual perspectives.

My grandmother often says she would rather be the least intelligent person in a group full of very bright people than the most intelligent person in any group.  That kind of sums up our experience here at this conference.  We were all privileged to not just meet but spend time conversing with some of the greatest minds in planetary science and with a general group of highly intelligent people.  After all, how many people would choose to spend three days of their summer vacation in seminars discussing what is a planet?

In the education field, the buzzword today is lifelong learning, meaning learning does not stop once one graduates from high school, college, or graduate school.  Instead, learning is a lifetime activity, as important and meaningful for adults as for children.

I came here to fight for Pluto, and I did--in my oral and poster presentations, in question and answer sessions, in personal discussions, even in lobbying the professionals who are members of the IAU to go to next year's General Assembly in Rio and stage a revolt to get dwarf planets recategorized as planets.  But in the process of doing all this, I got the opportunity to take part in what amounts to a summer enrichment course in planetary science and have personal discussions with some of the key players in this drama, including some who hold views supporting the opposing side.  By enhancing my knowledge of the subject matter, I know I have better positioned myself to be not just an advocate, but a well-informed one.

A lot was said about culture, the fact that "planet" is a cultural term as well as a scientific one, and the need for professional astronomers to take this into account.  This is something the IAU failed to do in making its decision in spite of the fact its own committee charged with developing a planet definition recommended doing just that.  In upcoming entries, I  will discuss the issue of the term planet in culture and why this aspect is something astronomers ignore at their own peril.

In the meantime, I want to thank APL, Dr. Hal Weaver, and all the organizers of this conference for opening attendance and even participation to all interested parties, for providing us this opportunity to have input into this issue and play a role in this important dialogue about just what makes something a planet.  Hopefully, this conference will be the first of many that will succeed in this endeavor, which the IAU so utterly failed to do.

Getting Ready for the Big Event

The excitement is a lot like that felt on the approach of a birthday, special personal occasion, or New Year's Eve. An event I've known about, anticipated, and planned for over a long period of time is fast approaching as reality.  The Great Planet Debate is scheduled to take place in less than three days in Laurel, Maryland.

Originally announced in the wake of the IAU vote demoting Pluto and scheduled for 2007, this conference for so long seemed just an abstract idea.  There were many times I wasn't even sure it would really happen though I kept on hoping. And now, it's real, not abstract, something brought home in the necessary last minute preparations for the long awaited trip to Maryland.

Unlike the IAU General Assembly, this conference is open to the public. In fact, not only is attendance open to the public, so is participation.  I am deeply honored at being given the opportunity to do a five-minute presentation on Friday morning as well as a poster presentation on both days. Not being a scientist, I do not have prior experience with such presentations and posters, and I am deeply grateful to Dr. Hal Weaver, who patiently answered my many questions and helped me through the process of preparing these.  The thought that I, a writer from New Jersey who feels passionately about Pluto, could have a say at a major event like this one speaks volumes about the openness of the organizers to a multiplicity of participants and perspectives.

One of the most exciting things about the Great Planet Debate is that it has once again ignited discussions all over the Internet about Pluto and the larger question of what is a planet.  IAU officials who stand by the untenable definition created by four percent of their organization in 2006 are right to be concerned.  That definition, flawed, sloppy, and rejected by scientists and lay people alike, has only a very shaky leg on which to stand. Its eventual overturning is all but inevitable.

Facts cannot be dictated by fiat or by the vote of a committee or even that of an organization such as the IAU. The concept that any object starts or stops being a planet at the stroke of a pen or count of a vote is ludicrous.  The only thing that pen stroke or vote accomplishes is the statement of a belief that the object in question has changed. We cannot vote Pluto out of being a planet any more than we can vote that the Earth rather than the sun is the center of the solar system.

It seems like the IAU has gone from being a scientific organization that centralizes naming and cataloguing in astronomy to a priesthood dictating by fiat what is and is not reality. How can any scientist expect people, whether other scientists or lay people, to blindly accept that an object is no longer what it used to be, not because something about that object changed, but because this small, closed group has decreed it so?

If the IAU has become this out of touch with the public and with members of its own field, then maybe it's time for another group, a more open, more professional, and less political group, to take its place.

Some IAU supporters are ridiculing the conference as "The Great American Planet Debate," as if this conference were open only to Americans.  That is not the case.  In fact, both the dynamical defintion of planet as well as the geophysical one will be presented and discussed.  The initial call for abstracts by those interested in presenting did not preclude anyone from making a presentation defending the IAU position.

It is true that a large percentage of American astronomers are planetary scientists while a large percentage of European astronomers are dynamicists.  But that has nothing to do with nationality.  Who would know better how to classify planets than those who study planets? (as opposed to those who study neutron stars, quasars, black holes, cosmology, etc.).  The nationality of these planetary scientists is completely irrelevant, just as is their religion, race, ethnicity, etc.  The attack on the conference because its organizers are Americans is based on completely flawed logic.  Additionally, there are many planetary scientists who are not members of the IAU, and they too deserve to be heard on this matter, as this is the field in which they specialize.

Getting back to my own involvement, and my presentations, whose topic will be "Planet Definition Is Important," I find the openness and receptivity of the organizers to be most refreshing and very welcoming. These are obviously people who want to engage the general public with astronomy as opposed to keeping the community of people involved with the field small and closed.

On a personal level, I want to thank some very, very special friends who have made this trip possible for me.  On July 24, my hard drive crashed, and as a result, a lot of my information was lost.  Thanks to the efforts of Mark Barry, Eileen Marville, Karl Hunting, Siobhan Elias, and Dr. Alan Stern, I was able to get back much of the Pluto-related information that had been on that hard drive.  For help with the Power Point presentations, I especially thank Amateur Astronomers, Inc. in Cranford, New Jersey, and the members who worked with me in the computer room on getting everything right in the presentation. There are many other ways these wonderful friends have made it possible for me to attend this event and do my best to take part in it, and for them, I will be forever grateful.

It is exhilarating to know that one can make a real difference, especially when one is not even a professional in the field.  Without the Internet, none of the worldwide discussions about Pluto by ordinary people would be possible. Without the Internet, no one but IAU members in a particular room on a particular day could have a say on this matter.   How amazing it is to live in an age where everyone can contribute to such discussions, provide input, and have their input valued and incorporated into such major decisions.

Throughout this week, I will be blogging on this site about the progress of the conference.  Stay tuned as the fight to reinstate Pluto goes into high gear.  The best is yet to come.

Dwarf Planets Are Planets Too

Within the last week, the renewed media focus on Pluto has resulted in encouraging news. More and more people have been commenting on various blogs and web sites expressing opposition to the IAU demotion of Pluto and its general undemocratic decision-making processes.

I am happy to report that as part of the advocacy campaign to inform IAU president Catherine Cesarsky, the IAU, and the media that contrary to Cesarsky's claim, many astronomers and lay people do in fact care a great deal about the designation of Pluto, that Siobhan Elias of Streator, Illinois, has started a new web site, http://dwarfplanetsrplanets2.com/  .  At this site, you can find links to background information on Pluto, the New Horizons mission, Clyde Tombaugh and general astronomy web sites. Siobhan also provides a good summary of what happened at the 2006 IAU General Assembly, links to both professional and lay petitions opposing the new planet definition, and contact emails to Cesarsky, the IAU, CNN, and the BBC. It is important to cc all messages sent to Cesarsky to the IAU, CNN, and BBC to publicly show the overwhelming public support for Pluto.

A huge thank you goes to Siobhan for her hard work and dedication in setting up this very helpful and comprehensive web site.

There is also an excellent interview dated June 23, 2008 with Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of New Horizons, on the web site of Sky and Telescope. The interview and comments responing to it can be found at http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/20661469.html?pageSize=0 . In language that is at the same time compelling and easy to follow, Stern presents the argument why the geophysical definition of planet (namely, the definition that a planet is a non-self luminous object in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting a star) is by far the most sensible and most useful one, especially in light of ongoing discoveries of a wide variety of planets in other solar systems.

Along with Dr. Stern, I once again urge anyone who shares our view that dwarf planets are planets too and therefore should be redesignated by the IAU as a subclass of planets to, in Stern's words, "get involved" and contact Cesarsky at catherine.cesarsky@cea.fr and cc your message to the IAU at iau@iap.fr , to CNN at headlinenews@cnn.com , and to the BBC at newsonline@bbc.co.uk . Your message can be as simple as "Dwarf Planets Are Planets Too" in the subject line or, if you so choose, can be more detailed. Feel free to use any ideas from my message to Cesarsky, which appears below:

Dear Dr. Cesarsky, IAU President,

I am writing to express my profound opposition to the 2006 demotion of Pluto from planet status and the subsequent designation of dwarf planets beyond the orbit of Neptune as “plutoids” and to urge the IAU to re-open and reconsider this entire issue.

It is especially disconcerting to me to read comments by you that nobody or very few people, whether scientists or lay people, care about this issue. This claim is simply not true.

As you are well aware, over 300 planetary scientists signed a petition within days of the 2006 vote describing the new planet definition as “sloppy” and stating they will not use it. The lead scientist circulating the petition is Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto and one of the foremost experts in the world on Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.

However, the claim that only scientists connected to New Horizons seek reversal of the 2006 definition is outrageous and untrue. Yes, those in charge of New Horizons focus on study of Pluto and the Kuiper Belt and therefore are more familiar with the particular nuances of this area than most other astronomers. This should give them more, not less credibility with the IAU in a decision on this matter.

The reality is that New Horizons is already fully funded and on its way to Pluto, so there is no issue of compromising the mission by Pluto’s downgrading. And many astronomers not connected with New Horizons, not even American, believe the IAU 2006 planet definition to be irreparably flawed and unusable.

The main problem is the rejection of the concept that dwarf planets are a subclass of planets. If this is reversed, much of the controversy will dissipate. In astronomy, dwarf stars are a subclass of stars, and dwarf galaxies are a subclass of galaxies. What is the problem with keeping the term planet broad with multiple subcategories such as terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, ice dwarfs, super-Earths, etc., with more to come as we discover a wider variety of exoplanets?

This raises another concern, which is that the 2006 definition does not make any provisions for exoplanets whatsoever. That seems quite archaic in an era when these objects are being found on a regular basis.

Also, the concept of an object “clearing its orbit” is vague and could be interpreted to exclude every single planet in our solar system, all of which orbit with asteroids in their orbital fields. It could especially be applied to Neptune, which does not “clear its orbit” of Pluto; for this reason, one could argue the definition sets up a double standard—Neptune is a planet, but Pluto is not even though the orbits of both overlap. And the requirement that an object clear its orbit makes it virtually impossible to have a binary planet system where two objects orbit one another—and also orbit a star—with a common barycenter.

Even if this requirement is changed to state that a planet must “dominate” the neighborhood of its orbit, that is a qualification that never historically has been viewed as necessary for qualifying an object as a planet. It could be kept as a dynamical consideration if we use the most sensible planet definition, which is that a planet is a non-self-luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star and then create a subcategory of dwarf planets that meet this criteria yet do not dominate their orbits. This compromise would give equal value to both dynamical and geophysical considerations and would maintain Pluto, Eris, and Ceres as planets but of the dwarf planet subcategory.

Like many, I am especially troubled by the process the IAU has been using to reach these decisions. Not using electronic voting means that anyone who can’t be in a room on one particular day has no say. In 2006, that left out 96 percent of the IAU’s own membership. The recent “plutoid” classification was made without consulting leading planetary astronomers such as Dr. Mike Brown, Dr. Hal Weaver, Dr. Mark Sykes, Dr. Alan Stern, and many others. How could the IAU craft a definition without seeking input from those who study this subject on a daily basis?

As Stern has pointed out, there are many planetary scientists who are not members of the IAU, meaning they currently have no say in such decisions. I ask that the IAU find a way to include their input, which is of tremendous value here, far more so than that of astronomers who specialize in areas other than planets, such as black holes, quasars, cosmology, etc.

I am a writer, not a professional astronomer, but I love astronomy and see a tremendous opportunity to engage the general public in it during the International Year of Astronomy in 2009. However, I also believe that the credibility of the IAU has been severely compromised by this debacle. Large numbers of both astronomers and lay people feel their voices have been unheard and discounted and are now looking elsewhere for leadership in the field.

For all these reasons, I implore you to recognize publicly that the 2006 definition is a mistake arrived at through a flawed process and to re-open this issue in a manner that is transparent, open and inclusive of all interested parties, makes use of electronic voting, and incorporates the views of planetary scientists who may not be IAU members but have a valid, vital perspective to contribute on this issue.

Sincerely,
Laurel Kornfeld
Highland Park, NJ, USA


Finally, to interested readers: Consider attending the Great Planet Debate in Laurel, Maryland, from August 14-16. It's not too late to register! You can find more information about the conference at http://gpd.jhuapl.edu/index.php

Dwarf planets are planets too!

Show Us the Data, Please

In the wake of the incredulity and ridicule following the announcement of the IAU's most recently coined term, "plutoids," IAU leaders and supporters of Pluto's 2006 demotion are abandoning all pretense of professionalism, resorting to the old political tactic of repeating something enough times in the hope that people will believe it as fact.

Dr. Catherine Cesarsky, president of the IAU, is leading this latest campaign by repeating statements that astronomers who seek to overturn the 2006 IAU planet definition constitute "a very small portion of the astronomy community," "practically nobody is trying to get Pluto reclassified as a planet," and "a few people make a lot of noise."

As a scientist, Cesarsky is certainly aware that any such claims must be backed up with supporting data if they are to be considered credible. Naturally, the question arises, on what data are Cesarsky's statements based? Did she conduct a survey of astronomers, and if so, how many, when, and was it a random sample, a comprehensive poll of everyone in the field, or a selective decision based on her own preconceived notions?

I may be completely wrong here, but my guess is that there was no survey or poll conducted at all, that Cesarsky's statements are simply conjecture with no data to back them up.  Yet Cesarsky has no problem repeating what are clearly political rather than scientific statements whose intention is nothing other than to discredit astronomers and others who support overturning the 2006 planet definition and reinstating Pluto and likely many other objects, such as Ceres and Eris, as planets.

If she claimed a scientific discovery in astrophysics, would she expect people around the world to believe in that discovery without supporting evidence? Would she expect controversial claims to be accepted on faith without any peer review? If she tried such things, she would be laughed out of her field.

In politics, the first principle of propaganda is "a lie repeated a thousand times becomes the truth."

Four percent of the IAU's membership voted in Prague, and most of those are not planetary scientists but other types of astronomers, meaning planets are not the area of their expertise. A tiny group decided on the term "plutoids." According to Dr. Alan Stern, Principal Investigator of New Horizons, many planetary scientists do not even belong to the IAU. Whether that is because they do not meet the IAU's requirements for membership or because they would rather spend their time on science rather than political maneuvering doesn't matter. The fact is, these people deserve to be heard, and in this electronic age, there is no excuse for not giving voice to every astronomer whose research specialty is studying planets.

Interestingly, one astronomer who would not meet the qualifications for IAU membership is the late Clyde Tombaugh, discoverer of Pluto.  IAU membership requires candidates have a PhD in their fields, and Tombaugh's highest degree was a Masters, unless one counts an honorary doctorate he was given by Northern Arizona University in 1960.

Cesarsky's statements are now being parroted by supporters of the IAU decision all over the Internet and the media, none of whom back up these statements with any supporting data.

One of the most outrageous claims is being made by German astronomy journalist Daniel Fischer, who is repeating the IAU line all over the Internet. Fischer states the following regarding the signatories of Dr. Stern's petition rejecting the IAU's 2006 planet definition:

"The so-called petition (the one with the 300 signatures) is a joke: I actually contacted most of the well-known astronomers who signed and asked them for their reason. Intriguingly some actually agreed with the IAU decision and many had no opinion at all. But they had signed for purely political reasons - be it that they were involved in New Horizons, others were simply angry that they hadn't been consulted."
He also says, in an online discussion with me,  "I actually went to great lengths to contact many of the astronomers who signed the 'petition' and found out what drove them - and you just don't want their own words to be true and dismiss my research as 'hearsay.'"
Source for both: http://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/000820.shtml#comments

Both Fischer and I are journalists and bloggers.  As a journalist, he should know fully well that any such claims, especially those arguing that professional astronomers signed their names to a statement in which they do not believe, must be backed up with supporting evidence as opposed to being accepted on his word alone.  Yet he does not provide any of that evidence.

So my challenge to him, is please tell us--on your blog, on the blog above, or at another site--the names of the signatories you contacted, when you spoke to them, and the exact statements they made. If you cannot provide this data, your claim has about as much credence as a story that you were abducted by a UFO but have nothing to prove it other than your word.

Cesarsky and fellow IAU supporters are also resorting to another old political tactic, namely, if one cannot defend one's position, simply attack one's opponents instead--the classic ad hominem, sometimes known here in the US as "swiftboating," after the personal attacks on 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.  In this case, the attacks attempt to discredit opponents of the 2006 planet definition as motivated by emotions such as anger and frustration or by nationalistic, namely American, attachments and personal interest in the New Horizons mission, rather than by genuine scientific concerns.  On the site, http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/06/defining_stars.html , researcher Mark Richardson describes the efforts of Stern and others to overturn the decision as "throwing a temper tantrum and crying."

In light of all this, I encourage everyone who believes in overturning the 2006 planet definition for a better one as well as reinstating Pluto and allowing for the addition of new objects as planets, to take part in an initiative being launched by Siobhan Elias in Streator, Illinois, contacting Cesarsky, the IAU, CNN, and the BBC and stating in the strongest possible terms your support for classifying dwarf planets as a subclass of planets.

Here, in her own words, is Siobhan's message:

"Dear family, friends & organization members:

As many of you know, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has made a mess of planet definitions, upsetting very many lay people, scientists, and school children. Amazingly, the IAU's president recently stated that
"I don't think there will be a big [reaction]," she says. "A few people make a lot of noise."

Please read the letter below that I've sent to IAU president, Catherine Cesarsky, with copies to the IAU, BBC & CNN (I've provided their email addresses).Please send her your own letter! It can be as brief as a few sentences or more "vocal" like mine. Make sure to use "Dwarf Planets Are Planets Too" in the subject line. Then send a letter to your
family & friends in the USA AND ABROAD and have them do the same, and so on, and so on...I think you get the point.

Here are the e-mail addresses-
PLEASE USE ALL 4 E-MAIL ADDRESSES AND DO THIS ASAP!

catherine.cesarsky@cea.fr
iau@iap.fr
headlinenews@cnn.com
newsonline@bbc.co.uk

I can't do this alone, but together we can create an avalanche of e-mails to Cesarsky and show her how many thousands of people recognize the IAU's blunder. Don't miss out on being involved in this world-wide protest.

-Siobhan Elias   (see my letter below)


------------------------------------------------------------
To Catherine Cesarsky, IAU President,

I am writing to you regarding the 'new' definition of a planet, approved by a very small faction of the voting members of the International Astronomical Union (IAU). I must add that when I first read the definition in August 2006, I was confused and angered.

As a resident of Streator, IL, hometown of Clyde Tombaugh, I saw this as a biased and calculated move to have Pluto 'stricken' from the record simply because an American discovered it. Of course, we are proud of this great feat of Clyde Tombaugh back in 1930. Why shouldn't we be? What he did was, at the very least, incredible. His subsequent contributions to the world of science and astronomy will forever be recognized.

The inconsistency of the definition in relation to what is now considered to be a planet is the term 'cleared the neighborhood.' What most intelligent people recognize to be the nine planets, all orbit the sun and have sufficient mass for hydrostatic equilibrium. However, five of the nine planets have a 'neighborhood"' which is NOT completely cleared. So if we go by the current IAU definition, Pluto, Earth, Jupiter, Neptune and Mars are not planets. That would be fine if the IAU applied the definition evenly when discriminating what is and what is not considered to be a planet.

The issue is not that planet Pluto was reclassified.The issue is not if most Americans agree or disagree with the definition. Your recent statements in the various articles I've read are insulting to the thousands of us who believe the IAU "screwed up" and now, through your comments, are trying to justify this by saying 'Nobody cares.' I know that countless scientists and lay people all over the world, have and will, continue to oppose this 'new' definition. Also, to say only the people tied to the New Horizons project are the ones pushing for the reinstatement of Pluto is ridiculous.  To minimalize their 'expertise' of the littlest planet is ludicrous. Who would know better if Pluto was a planet than the very scientists working on the New Horizons Mission?  With that thinking, it would be O.K. to have a dentist remove my appendix rather than a surgeon, simply because he was 'in the room.'

Just so there is no future misunderstanding on your part, I will do what I can to contact as many people as possible and have them also send you their thoughts (on this very controversial issue) which you seem to think 'nobody cares' about.

So here is the issue.... the current definition is inconsistent. It is not applied evenly to what some even consider, the 12 planets. Because of all these things.....the IAU has lost its credibility. Until this organization can stand up and admit their mistake, I believe most will feel the same. The IAU will not only have lost the support of people all over the world, but it will also lose the very membership which made it a 'once credible' organization.

Mrs. Siobhan Elias"

Please follow Siobhan's example and write! Let's make our voices heard!!!

Plutoids??? What Was the IAU Thinking???

Just when one thinks the IAU has done the extent of its damage in the planet debate and that things cannot get any worse, they do exactly that. With no advance notice to anyone but its Executive Committee, the IAU today announced that dwarf planets beyond the orbit of Neptune are henceforth to be called "plutoids."

And this is supposed to be a "bone" thrown to supporters of Pluto's planet status. Not quite.

After the resolution labeling dwarf planets beyond Neptune "Plutonian objects" failed at the IAU General Assemby in 2006 (that's the vote on the last day of the two week conference, by four percent of its members), the IAU Committee on Small Body Nomenclature and the IAU Working Group for Planetary System Nomenclature set out to come up with a new term to define these objects.

After two years, all they can come up with is "plutoids?" And since Ceres does not orbit beyond Neptune, the IAU is now considering labeling it the lone "ceroid." Are you confused yet?

On one of many television programs covering the US presidential election, a commentator noted wisely that when one makes a mistake, the best thing is to admit to that mistake rather than to further compound it with additional spin and attempts at rationalization.

It's too bad the IAU cannot follow that advice. If it did, its members would admit they messed up in 2006 with the sloppy definition that states that a dwarf planet is not a planet at all and rescind the decision or at least put it to a General Assembly vote that made provisions for electronic voting.

Instead, they chose to further muddy the waters with a new definition that only further confounds the issue.

According to this new definition, no object beyond the orbit of Neptune, regardless of its size, can ever be considered a planet. What kind of science is that? What about the geophysical makeup of these objects? Does that count for nothing? The best way to remedy this is to overturn the decision that dwarf planets are not planets at all. Then we can say that Ceres is an asteroid belt dwarf planet, and Pluto, Eris, and other round KBOs are Kuiper Belt dwarf planets. That keeps things simple; it preserves the identifying feature for planets as being in hydrostatic equilibrium while recognizing the dynamics of these objects by noting they do not dominate the neighborhood of their orbits.

How many IAU members voted on this definition? Certainly far fewer than the 424 who voted for the initial demotion. Just because the IAU claims its processes are democratic does not make them so. Why were major planetary astronomers like Dr. Alan Stern, Dr. Mike Brown (co-discoverer of Eris), and Dr. Hal Weaver not even informed that this discussion was taking place?

IAU General Secretary Karel A. van der Hucht argues that the IAU is open to comments and criticism. But how can anyone comment or criticize when no one even knew this subject was up for discussion?

This was purely and simply a backroom deal, a political decision, not a scientific one. It was made behind closed doors with no attempts at peer review, as is normally done in science. Weaver rightly terms the process used by the IAU here as "archaic" and not befitting an age of transparency.

And Stern is correct in describing the decision as "irrelevant" since it is unlikely to be used by many scientists or lay people because it does nothing more than further the confusion. Additionally, it does not take into account any definition for similar objects found in other solar systems.

This decision does nothing to promote the IAU's International Year of Astronomy, an outreach effort aimed at generating public interest in astronomy; in fact, it does the very opposite by showing the IAU to be an elitist, closed organization out of touch with the public and even with professional astronomers.

I plan to be at the JPL conference in Laurel, Maryland, arguing for the most sane planet definition I have ever heard, courtesy of my astronomy instructor Al Witzgall. Specifically, he says, "a planet is a non-self luminous spheroidal object orbiting a star." That's it. Then we subdivide into terrestrial planets, gas giants, ice giants, ice dwarfs, and perhaps additional categories as more discoveries are made.

A key factor the IAU, with all its PhDs, has yet to learn, is that the process by which something is done is just as important as that action itself. And the process by which they came to the word "plutoid," like the 2006 General Assembly vote, is irreparably flawed.

If Stern follows through on his suggestion to found a rival professional astronomical organization, more power to him.

There is a silver lining here for supporters of Pluto's planethood. Several astronomers, such as Stephen J. Kortenkamp, senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson, Arizona, and astronomy enthusiasts like Michael Burstein of the Society for the Preservation of Pluto as a Planet, have suggested that this weak, tenuous definition will only strengthen the voices of those of us who want to see Pluto's planethood reinstated.

If that does happen, then maybe this farce of a decision will have led to some good.